Introduction
Simulation models
Simulation results and analyses
Double-helical metamaterials
Tab.1 Comparison of optical performances between single- and double-helical metamaterials |
operation regions/μm | average transmittances of RCP light/% | average extinction ratios | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Au | single-helix | 0.72-1.00 | 63 | 36∶1 | |
double-helix | 0.75-1.30 | 65 | 25∶1 | ||
Al | single-helix | 0.42-0.79 | 63 | 39∶1 | |
double-helix | 0.44-1.10 | 56 | 31∶1 |
Three- and four-helical metamaterials
Elliptical-helical metamaterials
Tab.2 Polarization states of transmitted LEP light |
WL/µm | coordinates | AR | conversion of LEP |
---|---|---|---|
1.07 | (-0.58, 0.36,-0.72) | 1.95 | 4.1% |
0.93 | (-0.63, 0.31,-0.70) | 2.12 | 3.6% |
0.83 | (-0.62, 0.33,-0.70) | 2.09 | 4.4% |
0.75 | (-0.58, 0.31,-0.74) | 1.95 | 3.6% |
WL: Wavelength, AR: axial ratio |
Performances with oblique incidences
Tab.3 Parameters and simulation results with different incident angles |
angle of incidence/(°) | axial ratio | transmittances of LCP light/% | extinction ratio | diagrams |
---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 1∶0.93 | 57 | 5.04∶1 | Fig.7(a), “<InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="Online"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446669.jpg" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm" ScaleToFit="1"/></InlineMediaObject><InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="All"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446668.tif" ScaleToFit="1" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm"/></InlineMediaObject>” in Fig. 7(f) |
10 | 1∶0.80 | 65 | 6.78∶1 | Fig.7(b), “<InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="Online"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446667.jpg" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm" ScaleToFit="1"/></InlineMediaObject><InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="All"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446666.tif" ScaleToFit="1" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm"/></InlineMediaObject>” in Fig. 7(f) |
0 | 1∶0.67 | 69 | 7.58∶1 | Fig. 7(c), “<InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="Online"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446665.jpg" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm" ScaleToFit="1"/></InlineMediaObject><InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="All"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446664.tif" ScaleToFit="1" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm"/></InlineMediaObject>” in Fig. 7(f) |
-10 | 1∶0.66 | 68 | 7.71∶1 | Fig. 7(d), “<InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="Online"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446663.jpg" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm" ScaleToFit="1"/></InlineMediaObject><InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="All"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446662.tif" ScaleToFit="1" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm"/></InlineMediaObject>” in Fig. 7(f) |
-20 | 1∶0.59 | 62 | 6.22∶1 | Fig. 7(e), “<InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="Online"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446661.jpg" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm" ScaleToFit="1"/></InlineMediaObject><InlineMediaObject OutputMedium="All"><ImageObject FileRef="images\hcm0000446680.tif" ScaleToFit="1" ScaleToFitWidth="10cm"/></InlineMediaObject>” in Fig. 7(f) |
DW= 30 m, NH= 3, SG= 200 nm, LH= 200 nm, DH= 100 nm. |
Fig.7 Optical performances of the helical metamaterials with different incident angles. (a)-(e) are for the incident angles of 20°, 10°, 0°, -10°, and -20°, respectively; (f) is comparison of the transmitted light’s polarization states (represented on the Poincaré sphere). The blue, green, red, cyan, and pink points refer to the incident angles of 20°, 10°, 0°, -10°, and -20°, respectively |